Commonwealth v. Griffin
137 A.3d 605
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Philadelphia narcotics officers conducted surveillance in Sept. 2013 after complaints about a bearded male selling drugs at Weymouth Street addresses; Officer Stephen Dmytryk was the principal investigating officer.
- Controlled buys on Sept. 3 and Sept. 15, 2013 (using a CI) were observed by officers; Griffin sold heroin in the first and marijuana in the second transaction; Griffin was arrested Sept. 17 during execution of a search warrant.
- Griffin was convicted at a bench trial of PWID (for the Sept. 15 transaction) and sentenced to three years’ reporting probation on July 9, 2014.
- Griffin filed a post-sentence Rule 720(C) motion for a new trial based on after-discovered evidence: a recently unsealed federal indictment (referencing misconduct allegations), a federal civil-rights complaint, a newspaper article, and documents from an unrelated case (Mills) involving allegations against police officers.
- The trial court granted a new trial after a hearing; the Commonwealth appealed, arguing the materials were not admissible evidence, were only impeachment, unrelated to Griffin’s case, and would not likely change the verdict.
- The Superior Court reversed, holding the proffered materials were not admissible or relevant after-discovered evidence, primarily impeachment in nature, and insufficient to warrant a new trial; judgment of sentence was reinstated.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Griffin's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly granted a new trial based on after-discovered evidence under Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(C) | Proffered materials are not evidence, are unrelated to Griffin’s case, would be used only to impeach Dmytryk, and would not likely change the verdict | Materials were newly discovered (indictment sealed), would justify motions (reveal CI, suppress) and could lead to different verdict | Reversed: materials were not admissible/produci ble after-discovered evidence, were impeachment or irrelevant, and would not compel a different result; new trial improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Padillas, 997 A.2d 356 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard of review for granting new trial for after-discovered evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (scope of appellate review when trial court states reasons for new trial)
- Commonwealth v. Castro, 93 A.3d 818 (Pa. 2014) (four-prong test for after-discovered evidence and rule against new trials based solely on impeachment)
- Commonwealth v. Chamberlain, 30 A.3d 381 (Pa. 2011) (after-discovered evidence must be producible and admissible)
- Commonwealth v. Delbridge, 859 A.2d 1254 (Pa. 2004) (allegations are not evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Smihal, 126 A.2d 523 (Pa. Super. 1956) (an indictment is not evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Cook, 952 A.2d 594 (Pa. 2008) (irrelevant evidence is inadmissible)